1. Better story AND characters. Whether or not you like Claptrap, EVERYONE knows about him and his quirks. Same for Tiny Tina. Heck, even the characters from the first game which were relatively generic and without personality suddenly become interesting and fleshed out in the second game and make you feel like a part of them as the new guy. Heck, Borderlands even gives you your own characters backstory through findable collectables (something this game fails miserably at). 2. More loot, more varied loot which drops more often 3. No 100% RNG. If you want a super rare weapon, you have to farm the boss that drops it, like a GOOD MMO 4. Better skill trees. Both games have "super" abilities, but only Borderlands has a whole SLEW of passives that apply to the gunplay, which is how it should be in a frickin' FPS GAME. 5. Greater enemy variety 6. Stronger endgame (because getting better gear isn't based on dumb luck you're able to grind for the things you want which gives you a purpose and makes it far easier to access the endgame content) 7. Better characters to pick from. This game there is literally no reason to pick different races so that's out the window, leaving you with 3 classes and 3 subclasses, which would mean more IF they had passives that applied to the gunplay. As it stands, you shoot the same enemies in the same way until you use one power every couple of minutes. Borderlands encouraged you to play with different weapons with each character as there were various buffs applied to specific weapons and playstyles for each character, making them feel more unique and varied with each playthrough. 8. A better villain. Seriously, "The Darkness"? Aside from being vomit-inducing-boring, what is the darkness? What is it's motivation? Why does it do the things it does and how? Are the enemies all apart of the darkness? Then why are they fighting each other? Why are they fighting at all? How could they wipe humanity from the solar system and then get blocked at the last human city? Isn't the traveller basically dead? So what's to stop an all-out-assault? Borderlands 2, you have Handsome Jack. A narcissistic douche who you just absolutely despise throughout the whole game because you're constantly getting SHOWN what terrible things he does. He kills off a number of important people both in the game and in the game's history (as you discover through other collectables you can find), he psychotically rants at you, and his personality is identifiable and we understand WHY he's doing the downright evil things he does.

See, even if all those things were true (they're not) it's all subjective. Nobody can definitively say "X is better than Y" when everyone likes different things for different reasons.

Actually all those are pretty accurate and that's not subjective those are things borderlands has definitely done better and to say otherwise is just a product of fanboyism. It's ok to not have those reasons automatically make you prefer a game over the other however as there may be certain deal breakers in borderlands that matter more to you than to I

Just because you agree with them doesn't mean they aren't subjective. 2+2 = 4. That's a fact. Borderlands has better skill trees than destiny. That's an opinion. To chalk up differing opinions as "fanboyism" is essentially "reverse fanboyism"... i.e. putting the game down dispite what it does well because for whatever reason you don't like it. Many of the ones that you consider "obvious" could even be argued. For example: Of course BL2's characters were more fleshed out. It was the second game, and 90% of the characters were recycled from the first. I've played both borderlands and I think they're great. I also think Destiny is great. Frankly, I think some of the comparisons that are being made are apples and oranges. EDIT / PS: Many folks fall into the trap of comparing a new franchise to established ones - in many cases it's not a fair comparison. Wildstar launched recently, folks cruised through the content with poopsock attached then raged there was nothing to do. They compared it to WoW and said WoW had more to do. Well of COURSE it does, it's been out there for a decade. Bungie's not new, but Destiny is, and I want to see where they take it.

No these are clearly things that are done better. But that's the thing about opinions is that you don't have think logically as to why you think a game is better. Ex: I could come up with more reasons as to why Mass Effect is better than Fallout but I still like Fallout more but just denying that something has better aspects that are clearly above and beyond Fallout that are present in Mass Effect is just ignorant. If you would like to argue this state the reason you argue against and give your argument as to why Destiny does that aspect better

Sorry, I disagree. They're not "clearly above and beyond" - you think they are. So if you can provide 5 [u]factual [/u]arguments as to why, you win. Again, this is borderline trolling on my part because you simply can't... this is a matter of opinion by its very nature.

Here is the one fact that you need. Things that are comparable will always have objectively better aspects and subjective aspects. There is no denying that. I doubt you are capable of realizing this because your rebuttal was essentially the same one you used to the person who wrote the objectively better aspects Borderlands has over Destiny which leads me to believe that you can not provide an argument for your way of "everything is subjective in comparisons" style of thinking. I'm not saying that your not allowed to think Destiny is better because that's not the point of my argument and I don't believe that would make the comparison in my OP interesting if Borderlands held everything over Destiny and I do believe that two games are on a similar level of quality with the subjective aspects of Borderlands winning me over.

The response was the same because the argument's the same. Let's take a specific example. #5 - "Greater Enemy Variety" Borderlands has a few main "groups", Bandits, Robots, Hyperion. Then they have differing scales of each - the same enemy could then have a midget version or a badass version. Destiny has a few main "groups" as well, Cabal, Vex, Fallen. Then there are differing scales of each - Knight, Hallowed Knight. (Sorry, no Midget Knights) In any meaningful way, they're essentially the same. Borderlands does have a few random mobs that don't have an analogue in Destiny, like Skags, but what is it that they do differently that makes it "better" ? Various enemies on both sides have "specials" like shooting the head off the Goliath and it rages and punches it's friends, shooting Vex in the head instead of the magical belly button make them go nuts and charge you. If you want to look purely at the numbers, counting enemies, (the objective measurement) the list is accurate and BL2 does have more enemy types than Destiny. However is it meaningful, does it make one game better over the other (the subjective measurement) is always going to be a matter of opinion. I could create a game with 100 different enemy types. If they all used the same attack, who cares? Kind of like Destiny's recycled Halo mechanics. Hobgoblins have Armor Lock. Cabal Phalanxes are essentially really fat Jackals. Bungie can say "Look at these new enemies" but to us it's old news and isn't a defining factor.

Objectively Bl does have the greater variety which extends well past "midgets". Subjectively you may prefer how Destiny went about their variety. The fact still remains that Borderlands has greater variety and that's not subjective because we can quantitatively state that there are more I.e greater amounts of unique enemies in Borderlands than Destiny.

I acknowledged that by the objective measurement, yes there are more enemies... but your OP was not "Borderlands has more enemies than Destiny". Your topic claims that "Borderlands is Better Than Destiny" - whether or not the additional enemies actually back up that assertion is the subjective measurement. You may believe it does, frankly I don't. So there you go.

Let's ignore the OP as it was simply a way to rustle jimmies and I believe this is a quality debate that we are having. I also believe that you have acknowledged the point that I was trying to get across and that's all I cared to prove. The truth is that there are so many subjective aspects that ultimately the comparison is subjective, but the objective aspects are simply indisputable and arguing against those aspects is futile but the importance of those objective aspects is subjective in its own right.

But that would mean that we've agreed somehow. I think we did this wrong.

Look at the gif and tell me I'm not trolling